Advocate gets bail in rape case in absence of ‘scientific evidence’

The court granted relief to the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta a.k.a. Sumit, against whom a female advocate lodged an FIR of rape at Bara Hindu Rao Police Station.

New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted bail to an advocate who was accused of raping a woman advocate after noting that there was no scientific evidence, and the police did not seek custodial remand.

The court granted relief to the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta a.k.a. Sumit, against whom a female advocate lodged an FIR of rape at Bara Hindu Rao Police Station.

Deepak Shama, the counsel appearing for the accused, contended that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.

MS Education Academy

“Applicant-accused and the prosecutrix both are practicing Advocates. The prosecutrix and the accused-applicant have been known to each other since 2019 and were in relation till October 2022. Prosecutrix is well known to the family of the accused,” Sharma argued.

He further argued that the prosecutrix has made false complaint with the police regarding the accused that he was her husband and was missing.

Sharma said that she only wanted to pressurise him to marry her despite the fact that he had got married with someone else.

“My client had filed a representation before DCP, Civil Lines, Delhi and thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. There is no complaint against my client from 2019 to March, 2023. There is no scientific evidence in respect of termination of her pregnancy,” he said.

The court also noted that the police did not seek the custodial remand of the accused.

“The accused deserves benefit of Section 438 CrPC. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta a.k.a. Sumit, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount. Accused shall join the investigation as and when required by the police and he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case,” the court noted while granting relief.

Back to top button